Page:

Richard Posted Tuesday 10th February 2009 14:40 GMT

Look how far you HAVE dome. You CAN have pop-tarts. And instead of eating the local fauna after running the little bastards down and killing them with your stick, you can make a living typing in a room without predators eating your ringpiece. And then BUY pop tarts to keep that ringpeice from getting too close to the seat.

And Chris, if you are going to be an arsehole, how com YOU get paid for it??? Fuckwit El Reg team.

@Dom

"And until Linux is made into an easy out-of-the-box solution like Win or OSX AND has major software houses writing for it, Linux will fail."

Nope, because, if you actually tried COMPREHENSION, there is no way for some users to make Linux right, no matter how out-of-the-box it is. NEVER. They, like you, Vincent Hippo and the various AC's talking out their arses will NEVER accept Linux. If it ever managed to be 100% compatible, you or others would kill it as merely a "me too" product. Because it is 100% compatible, that includes all the bugs that meant Linux was inherently safer. And at that point, what the fuck's the point of writing the OS?

And you and your pals spreading lies and shite "reasons" why Linux won't work ensures that someone who may have tried (and, maybe, failed) to move to Linux will be scared off.

Through Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And even if they failed, that would have been an honest failure. Where you are trying to ensure the attempt is never made.

Why? I dunno. You make lots of money off the status quo and so any change may reduce it (anyone doing better than average is likely to lose in ANY change, since a change will reset all players default standing).

Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 3rd February 2009 16:35 GMT

Really, what irony? Just because you say "that's the sound of irony" doesn't make it ironic.

Just say "***I*** don't want to use Linux. I don't like it". That is fine. That is YOUR opinion. But don't make shit up about it not being YOUR decision.

"What you have summed up in one line is everything that's wrong with Linux marketing/evangelism: the user is always wrong. Or the developer. Anyone or anything except the product not being fit for purpose."

And talk about reading from a parallel dimension. It was all about it being the USERS DECISION. AND that that was OK. What is NOT right is making crap up about why when it really is just their personal decision.

UCTA

"They create, you buy, you're not allowed to re-sell or give away I don't see that it's so one sided."

What is one-sided is that the terms of copyright have changed to enhance the value of copyright to the copyright owners but there is no commensurate increase to the value to the public from the change to contract.

The contract was changed to a one-sided benefit.

E.g. computer programs didn't used to be copyrightable. Are now. Personal copying was A-OK (and a turning copy is OK too) and you were not blocked from doing so either technically or legally. Piracy laws were crafted for commercial scale infringement and applied to non-commercial use.

And much, much more.

For which we, the publc, get less value from the copyrights (they do not expire in our lifetime anymore). We have to pay more and more taxes to policing, enforcing and prosecuting pissant scale copyright infringement. We get DRM which ignores copyright and time-bomb programs that die before copyright expires.

Says someone without the courage to identify themselves

> "so why should I obey a contract that is only one-sided? Ever heard of "contract of adhesion"? Or UCTTA?"

> Go on then mighty mouth - argue that in court.

> Please.

> Put your money where you mouth is.

Why?

And I have, not in a court of law but to FOX. I mailed them and told them that I did not care if the DVD was protected, I would break that protection and if they didn't like it they could take me to court.

Funnily enough, no court case ensued.

I'm not going to take FOX to court just to say "I am breaking your encryption", but it seems like they don't want to either (so where's the damage?)

Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 6th February 2009 13:13 GMT

"A musician is entitled to seek investment for production, promotion and marketing. Whether "the recording industry" is owned EMI, Coca Cola or Verizon is irrelevant. It's going to be there."

He's not entitled to any guaranteed profit from it. A Heinlen quote is appropriate. I will let you find it yourself.

The rest of what you post is bullshit, pulling what ideas you think will make your case stronger and mine weaker, not because you think they may be true, but because you wish to lie to bolster your case.

re: *yawn* This old chestnut again.

Heck, before reliable recording, the recording industry didn't exist. Music was made. Before radio, the industry had to spend a LOT to advertise to a small number of people and had to rely on a lot of word-of-mouth. Music was made. When fragile shellac was changed to robust plastic polymer, breakage rates went down to nearly nil, but the accounting for losses didn't change. Now we see the beginnings of the future. For when digital downloads are assessed, you STILL have "breakage" reductions of the sales figures. How does one break a digital download? And can you ask for a new one for free if you happen to get one?

No.

Now the internet is wider spread than the radio, there's no need for connections in meatspace to let people know of your music. The replication is done by others, so no need to buy time in a pressing factory.

re: Bottom line

"When I purchase a piece of music, or a song, I wish to purchase a licence to listen to *this performance*. Not "this CD" or "this MP3" or whatever, but "this performance of song Z by artist Y recorded on date Z". That's it."

Alternatively, if I've bought the CD or whatever, it is now MY PROPERTY. Stop being all communist and telling me what I can do t o MY PROPERTY.

@Ogduru

"Both persons may “want” $50 p/h but the market will determine the value of the creation. I really don't see any “money-grubber” in either of these persons."

Except when the only reason why they went into their respective fields was the chance to get $50ph. When the dot-com boom was underway, LOTS of people took computer science courses. Why? Because you could leave with a degree and jump straight into a $150,000 job.

They went into it for the money, not for the work.

And when the dot-com bust turned up, was the government all on about how all these poor starving computer science graduates were unable to get the job they wanted and that there should be laws put in place to make sure that they get a cut from ANY website revenue?

No. They were left to find out that if you go for a job for the money, there's nothing to do but retrain when the money moves elsewhere.

untitled

"On top of that artists from the last 5- or 6-hundred years have had to feed themselves and required money in order to do this: Some have been fortunate enough to do exactly and only what they like but most of those have had to compromise in order to get there."

And despite all that and the complete dearth of copyright for most of that time, we still had music. People still created it, listened to it, performed it and got paid for it (or had the time).

So why should copyright he here now?

Legislating someone to make money is as bad as any quango, yet doesn't get the same bad press.

@Ryan

Uk, the Loki installer (still available, despite Loki going titsup because the CEO ran off with the money because it was OPEN SOURCE) lets you

a) click on a Setup icon

b) Select where to install it

c) Runs

In fact, when you select your home area to install (so as not to run as root), IT ONLY INSTALLS THERE. It doesn't put shite in the system directories or anywhere else. Just in the area related to where you have asked it. Unlike Windows which update and stuff things in Windows/SYSTEM.

You don't have to do all your a-f either. Your distribution has "Add packages" rather like your MS's "Add New Programs". However, unlike "Add New Programs", the "Add packages" application will add from other repositories but is configured for you to use the standard repositories. So rather than one app to add programs and a different one for updates, you have the one program for doing both.

re: It's their own fault

Nope, the problem is that grandma doesn't want a computer. She wants something to email pictures of her grandchildren and look up cooking recipes on AOL. If she's the sort of grandma you posit.

And Windows, to sell newer versions, is getting further and further away from that.

However, have a look at the Nokia N800. Apart from being the wrong HARDWARE, it IS what gramma wants. It doesn't do as much out of the box but it does what Aunt Tillie needs and is secure BECAUSE of it.

And only possible because there are "a hundred different Linuxes". One of which is tied down.

'Freedom' my arse

However, it should be possible to run on an emulator for the XBox360. There's a REASON why an XBox game won't work on a PS.

What is the reason why an AAC file whose ONLY PURPOSE is to be listened to, not be usable on anything capable of playing an AAC? Why, when we're in a global economy, is it OK to say "you cannot buy this because you are in the wrong country"?

And people DO NOT know the deal when they buy a DRM'd product. Because they are not educated about it, don't have the time to learm and until they get fucked up the arse, don't see it as a problem.

E.g. an iTunes store user doesn't realise how badly he is fucked until their iPod breaks and they buy an AAC player that isn't compatible with iPod DRM. Or their Windows machine breaks and the service goes down.

Until they get screwed like the buyers of Gears Of War (who would have figured DRM would kill your game if it went past Jan28?), they don't see DRM as a problem because they are TOLD *deliberately* that DRM is only to get at those pesky pirates. And, not being a pesky pirate do not think that the DRM would affect them.

@Pierre

didn't ask who you worked for Pierre. PaulM seems to be fixated on OTHER people answering that, though he never answers or even acknowledges the question.

Paul is displaying the NEED for an ad hominem by demanding he must know who I work for. If the answers given are true, it doesn't matter who I work for. If the answers are false, then that falsity needs to be exposed, not who I work for.

Worse are the ACs. Not even willing to give a unique name (so you can see whether there is a pattern to the posts), but still insinuating and demanding information that is not needed, but gives an easier argument to say "don't listen to them!". Takes a lot less work than finding the flaws.